Pages

About us

Members & staff of UKIP past & present. Committed to reforming the party by exposing the corruption and dishonesty that lies at its heart, in the hope of making it fit for purpose.
Only by removing Nigel Farage and his sycophants on the NEC can we save UKIP from electoral oblivion.
SEE: http://juniusonukip.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/a-statement-re-junius.html

Saturday, 28 February 2009

Peter Cole - a former UKIP Chairman - has released the following press statement:

Country before self

United Kingdom First – New party; new direction

We are launching United Kingdom First because we have no alternative. There are no substantial differences between Labour, the Tories, and Lib Dems in their meek acceptance of EU domination.

Five years ago, the United Kingdom Independence Party - which most of us here belonged to - seemed to have a bright future. Through the campaigning efforts of ordinary members, 12 UKIP MEP’s were elected in the European Parliamentary elections. Sadly, their four years in Brussels has done nothing to bring the UK any nearer to withdrawing from the EU. The MEPs’ inaction, particularly regarding the Lisbon Treaty, along with the presence of a non-UK resident pro-EU candidate on the 2009 MEP list has destroyed the party’s credibility. As Conservative Party chairman Eric Pickles said in a BBC radio interview recently, ”Nigel Farage has presided over the collapse of his party.” We have nothing against ordinary UKIP members. 80 percent of whom are honest patriotic people, but the party leadership now behaves like the rest of the political class in this country - saying one thing but doing another. Such people are not fit to represent the withdrawalist cause in Britain.

But now UKF is here, offering this country the new direction it so desperately needs – and we believe that we have a vision for Britain that will resonate with the electorate and ensure the party won’t stay small for long. We stand for smaller, more accountable government, low taxes, freedom of speech and an emphasis on a common culture. Withdrawal from the EU is only part of our message, although we regard it as essential to get Britain back on its feet.

So while we will be contesting this June’s European Parliamentary elections in two regions of the UK, our main objective is to get party members elected onto local councils and to the Westminster Parliament, where the fight to get our country back will really take place. We are under no illusions that it will be very difficult to take on the three main political parties which have dominated the political scene for decades, but we believe times are changing. We see a real opening in the coming years for a party that truly speaks for the British people.

Whatever part of the country you come from, you are more than welcome to join us if, like us, you are sick and tired of career politicians, their broken promises and their surrender of our freedoms.. The more support and funds we can raise, the more impact we will have. So spread the word!After June, we will put together a thoroughly researched and costed policy manifesto for the UK and further develop our strategy of communicating to the public that UKF is a party that is different from the others. Our campaign to win our first seat in the House of Commons starts NOW!

Friday, 27 February 2009

Peter Cole - UKIP Chairman of two branches in Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire - has now resigned from UKIP. Yet again another decent, hard working member is driven out thanks to Farage and Nuttall's dishonesty, deceit and corruption.

Here is his resignation letter to Paul Nuttall:

AN OPEN LETTER TO MR PAUL NUTTALL UKIP PARTY CHAIRMAN

Dear Paul

Thank you for your letter dated 20th February 2009 signed again by David Challice.

With regard to your second paragraph, I find your comments completely unworthy, firstly, if an unlawful committee (as defined in the Party Rules) is selecting the prospective MEP’s, there certainly ARE ‘Grounds’ for a re-run. After having read both the returning officer’s statement and the letter from George Curtis to John West there most certainly ARE ‘Grounds’.

Secondly, you state there is insufficient time for a re-run, should anyone be surprised when it has taken you twenty-one (21) weeks to come to this conclusion?

I joined UKIP thinking I had joined a democratic, honest party. I think that it was when I joined, but during these last two years things have ‘gone to pot’, I am still very much against the European Union and desperately want my country back, I now have grave doubts that this is UKIP’s aim.

What has happened to the very serious complaints I have made about the liar George Curtis, who I now note has become another NEC ‘nodding donkey’ and the liar Peter Reeve who I understand has now been interviewed by the Cambridgeshire Police after assaulting another person at a UKIP meeting?

I am so disgusted with the way you, the ECC and the NEC conduct yourselves I will now not only refuse to help UKIP in the EU elections but strongly oppose anything that UKIP tries to achieve, consequently I have no other choice than to resign my UKIP membership.

Thursday, 26 February 2009

As you can imagine Mr Denny and Mr Arnott were none too pleased when their emails were placed on the internet.

You will recall that Mr Denny had accused Michael Zuckerman of incompetence and feebleness after allowing Niall Warry to renew his membership. Rather bravely Denny had gone on to say that “I don't mind saying that because I would happily say so his face (I would not say anything about someone behind their back that I would not be willing to say to their face)”.

Unfortunately Mr Denny’s words came back to haunt him when he found out that Zuckerman had read the email. In desperation he quickly sent a grovelling apology to Zuckerman in the hope that all would be forgiven and forgotten.

I can now report that Mr Denny has called in the Police after alleging that his computer had been hacked into. For some strange reason Dippy Denny is convinced that he is of such national importance that MI5 is watching his every move. Unfortunately the leaking of his email to Greg Lance-Watkins has reinforced this delusion.

I hate to deflate Denny’s ego but I can assure him that MI5 would not EVEN consider wasting one minute of their time monitoring one of UKIP’s most insignificant, self-obsessed, idiotic members.

Mr Denny should realise that UKIP has now become totally insignificant. Every year our membership has fallen. Every year our national share of the vote has dropped. In local elections we are beaten by the BNP. In many elections we can’t even find candidates willing to face the humiliation of coming last. Every single gain made in 2004 has been thrown away thanks to Farage’s incompetence and stupidity. UKIP is now a national laughing stock. We have now become such an irrelevance that even the newspapers are not interested in the numerous UKIP scandals that have emerged over the last year.

And yet despite this Denny is still convinced that both he and UKIP are of such national importance that MI5 is prepared to watch their every move!

Wednesday, 25 February 2009

In the words of the common croucher I had a good chortle when I read on GLW's blog the contents of Denny's email to Arnot slagging off Zuckerman,

"I have to say too that to me, MZ has proved himself to be a dubious P.Secretary. There have been a number of times when I have wondered about his competence as a lawyer.

I don't mind saying that because I would happily say so his face (I would not say anything about someone behind their back that I would not be willing to say to their face). In fact have come close to doing so. The only reason I have not is for the sake of conciliatory harmony in the NEC, but it is not easy for my personal disposition to accept fools lightly, and those last two decisions lead by him which swung the NEC into unnecessary decisions are foolish enough by any standard in my opinion.

I know for a fact he deliberately will not answer anything to anyone, unless practically forced to, and complained to me once about being too busy to answer silly people asking silly questions - as he sees it. The whole idea of a PS is to deal with the queries coming in, and organise the direction of party business within his remit. He does not seem willing to do this, beyond narrow confines of what he deems suitable. My opinion is if he does not like the heat he should get out of the kitchen.

"When I was elected to the NEC last March I was in 3rd place and Denny was 4th. The first question I was asked by most people was, "Who voted for Denny? Nobody likes him". I found out why at my first NEC in early April when I was verbally abused by Denny for having the temerity to ask our leader, NF, produce some evidence to support his demand we expel an entire branch. My fate was sealed. Farage was heard later shouting at his sycophants, " I want him off". Over the next 5 months Denny aided by Bannerman led a vicious, unprincipled campaign to have me removed from the NEC. I never did find an answer to the voting part of the question!

I soon found this pattern of expulsions repeated in London and the Eastern region. It is no wonder that UKIP membership is in decline. I sat through a number of NEC discussions on expulsion but not a one on recruitment or coming electoral campaigns.

Their excuse to get rid of me was that I had defamed Mr Gill behind his back. Mr Gill was supposedly in charge of MEP selection and I took the old fashioned view that when you are in charge of something you make sure you can be contacted and better still you are present. Mr Gill was neither. I made repeated attempts to contact him with no success. Is it not ironic that this is exactly Denny's recent complaint about Zuckerman?

I did say that Mr Gill, 15 years a Tory MP, seemed never to have even been a PUSSY. Denny of course thought I was talking about cats but in parliamentary terms a PUSSY is a Parliamentary Under Secretary and is the lowest rung on the government ministerial ladder. No Government Minister is ever allowed to go on holiday without leaving clear and effective contact details with the private office. Mr Gill had gone on holiday and seemed unaware of this important executive convention.

I never impugned Mr Gill's competence or ability in any way. Denny however seems to have impugned Zuckerman's professional abilities something I deplore. Further NF will not forgive or forget Denny's description of him as a waffling Soggy Sheep!

It was clearly convenient to blame me for the NEC leaks. Give a dog a bad name etc. This has now been shown to be completely false. Whilst on the NEC I never leaked and nor did I post Internet comments. Denny is shown as having 1229 posts to his name on Democracy Forum since 2005 the period he was on the NEC! Read Denny's postings on the Democracy Forum thread, Dr Eric Edmond removed from SW MEP list and you gain much insight into Denny's character. Click here to read

I trust the NEC will now act promptly to remove Denny from its number.

You will recall that UKIP’s NEC recently denied Niall Warry the right to renew his UKIP membership. However, after Mr Warry threatened legal action against UKIP it was quickly decided to reverse this decision. Mr Warry is now at liberty to renew his membership.

I can reveal that Farage and Zuckerman were extremely worried to hear that Niall had more than enough money to fight the case. To make matters worse they were advised that he could even win! That’s why they backed down.

As you can imagine certain UKIPPERS were extremely unhappy with this sudden U-turn. Douglas Denny was particularly incensed by the decision and bitterly complained to Jonathan ‘Nice but Dim’ Arnott about Michael Zuckerman and Nigel Farage’s handling of the matter.

Subject: Niall Warry case

Doug,

Please consider this to be a personal email. I'm there merely to take minutes and give any reports when requested. I don't want to be quoted on this as it's not appropriate for me to comment publicly on NEC decisions especially given that I'm not on the NEC.

I have three questions further to the ones you raise which I believe support your position. My 'gut' feeling is with you on this one :

1. Would a judge really force a political party to have as a member someone that they do not want?

2. There was a note on the Head Office system saying that Niall Warry had stated he would not be renewing his membership. Therefore are we within our rights to treat that as a resignation that has been post-dated (and on which basis we did not take disciplinary action sooner), in which case this is in any case a new membership application and can be rejected?

3. The chance that this is a bluff must surely be very high - what does Niall Warry have to gain from taking legal action in order to get himself back into the party and then immediately suspended?

Yours,

Jonathan Arnott

End of first email

Subject: Re: Niall Warry case - reply - Douglas > Jonathan Arnott

Jonathan,

Many thanks for your kind support and comments on this.

Indeed any e-mail to me is personal unless you say otherwise. I consider the medium in principle to be the same as a written letter.

I am frankly quite put out that we allowed ourselves to be railroaded by Warry into a ridiculous decision, with what is quite obviously a bluff intended to discommode us. It makes us look foolish and weak. I was surprised Nigel even looked like a soggy sheep and waffled about it.

It annoys me that we seem to be fire-fighting all the time instead of taking attacks like this face-on with hard resolve, and kicking them into touch. In fact if such cases ever get anywhere near a court, one can always make a retraction/apologies then at the first hearing which is enough to put a stop to it.

As you say, Warry already had made it clear he had resigned - that was stated at the committee but everyone ignored its significance - and a verbal statement alone to that effect is enough of a contract in law to be applicable in any court. Furthermore he would never have the money himself to make a challenge in court, and anyone putting up the moolah would be utterly stupid risking wasting it on a very weak case, which would almost certainly go against with nearly 99.9% probability.

These two issues would never get beyond a letter or two between solicitors

If Ok with you I might put these further points of yours in another general e-mail to the NEC if there is no further response from MZ.

I will force his hand eventually or make him look a fool.

I have to say too that to me, MZ has proved himself to be a dubious P. Secretary. There have been a number of times when I have wondered about his competence as a lawyer.

I don't mind saying that because I would happily say so his face (I would not say anything about someone behind their back that I would not be willing to say to their face). In fact have come close to doing so. The only reason I have not is for the sake of conciliatory harmony in the NEC, but it is not easy for my personal disposition to accept fools lightly, and those last two decisions lead by him which swung the NEC into unnecessary decisions are foolish enough by any standard in my opinion.

I know for a fact he deliberately will not answer anything to anyone, unless practically forced to, and complained to me once about being too busy to answer silly people asking silly questions - as he sees it. The whole idea of a PS is to deal with the queries coming in, and organise the direction of party business within his remit. He does not seem willing to do this, beyond narrow confines of what he deems suitable. My opinion is if he does not like the heat he should get out of the kitchen.

His other opinion about the alleged libel by Paul made by Abbott is another case in point - I am quite sure MZ is wrong in thinking any court would consider such a weak linkage to be a libel - and even if it did, they would most likely loose their own costs if not the whole case. It would never get that far.

We were railroaded into a weak position by a bluff again.

To put a libel case forwards it costs £20,000 + (that figure was from Zuckerman's own mouth about libel mentioned in the past) - and no one is going to risk that kind of money on a weak case like that. Apparently another solicitor who actually deals with libel cases that Paul Nuttal knows thinks MZ is totally wrong.

That's good enough for me.

Anyway - I shall wait to see if any further response then turn up the heat on Michael if he does not comply with my request to answer.

Best regards,

Douglas.

P.S. Hope you enjoyed your stay in Gibraltar. Did you win any chess

End of second email.

Oh dear! Has Dippy Denny gone to far? Can we expect his name to be added to Nigel’s infamous hit list? He should have realised long ago that you criticise Fuhrer Farage at your peril. However, I would not get too upset if Denny falls from grace. He has always been one of the more obnoxious members of the NEC. He has been actively involved in the NEC’s corruption , lies and dishonesty ever since he was elected to that body. He has colluded with Farage in removing decent members from UKIP and has repeatedly slandered people like Geoffrey Collier and John West. He is widely disliked in UKIP and is regarded by many as being thick and without a shred of ability or integrity. Indeed, he has achieved nothing of note since joining UKIP and should crawl back under whatever slimy stone he came from.

Tuesday, 24 February 2009

A LEAKED internal report has revealed systematic abuses by Euro MPs of parliamentary allowances that enable them to pocket more than £1m in profits from a single five-year term, writes Jonathan Oliver.

The auditor’s confidential report, suppressed by the Brussels parliament, discloses the extraordinary frauds used by MEPs to siphon off staff allowances funded by taxpayers.

It shows that some claimed for paying assistants of whom no record exists, awarded them bonuses of up to 1½ times annual salary and diverted public money into front companies.

An investigation into the abuses of staff allowances worth up to £182,000 a year — many of which are paid by MEPs to members of their family — was delivered in January last year but was not published.

A copy of the 92-page report, prepared by Robert Galvin, the parliament’s head of internal audit, has been seen by The Sunday Times. It reveals:

- Payments were made to assistants who were not accredited with the European parliament and to companies whose accounts showed no activity.

- End-of-year bonuses worth up to 19½ times monthly salary were paid to assistants to allow members to use up their full annual allowance.

- Payments, supposedly for secretarial work, were made to a crèche whose manager happened to be a local politician from the MEP’s political party.

-Payments were made straight into the coffers of national political parties.

- Some assistants doubled their money by banking pay-offs from outgoing MEPs at the same time as receiving salaries from incoming ones.

- One MEP claimed to have paid the full £182,000 staff allowance to one person, suspected of being a relative.

The revelations come as British MEPs look forward to an inflation-busting pay rise this year that could see their take-home pay rising by almost 50%.

In his report, Galvin said that overpayments of allowances were common, adding:

“Remuneration paid may not always be justified by the real costs of providing parliamentary assistance.” He warned that abuses exposed the parliament to “financial, legal and reputational risk”.

The report was based on a representative sample of 167 payments — out of a total of 4,686 — made during October 2004. It suggests that Galvin unearthed only a tiny fraction of the many corrupt practices employed by some of the 785 members of the 27-nation parliament. His analysis of the 2004 figures then took years to surface within the secretive Brussels bureaucracy.

New figures compiled by the TaxPayers’ Alliance reveal how MEPs can pocket more than £1m over five years by exploiting different allowances. The calculations were inspired by known abuses of the system, which Brussels insiders claim have been commonplace.

Over a full term, MEPs could easily bank almost £450,000 in staff allowances — even if they employed several genuine full-time assistants.

The campaign group estimates that MEPs claiming the maximum subsistence of £257 a day while staying in cheap accommodation could also pocket about £105,000 from this source over five years.

MEPs could make £217,800 in office expenses by claiming their home was also their constituency office. No receipts are required to receive this money.

The lack of any need to provide receipts to justify travel expenses means that MEPs could receive a £54,000 tax-free profit while still making regular journeys between Brussels and their home country.

MEPs also have a final salary pension scheme which is even more generous than the one provided to members of the Westminster parliament. The TaxPayers’ Alliance calculates that the cash value of this benefit would be about £350,000 over a full parliamentary term.

At current exchange rates the grand total profit over five years comes to £1,176,800.

That figure does not include an MEP’s salary, which is due to increase after the June European elections thanks to a “harmonisation” of MEPs’ pay.

British MEPs receive £63,291 a year, the same as Westminster MPs. After July their pay after tax could rise from about £46,835 to almost £69,000 a year, depending on the exchange rate and whether they can pay the lower European Union tax rate of 15%.

The existence of the Galvin report was first revealed last year when Chris Davies, a Liberal Democrat MEP who read the document, refused to sign a confidentiality agreement and disclosed some of its findings.

Davies’s revelations created EU-wide interest in the corruption of the Brussels parliament. Despite the embarrassment, MEPs voted to keep the report confidential.

In November Den Dover, a British Conservative MEP, was forced to pay back £500,000 in expenses after The Sunday Times revealed that he had been wrongly paying his EU allowances to a family firm.

It was the most outrageous of a series of expenses scandals that emerged last year.

The European parliament has announced a number of reforms to the expenses rules which will come into force this summer. These include ensuring that MEPs’ staff are paid directly by the parliament rather than via the members’ own “service provider”.

However, Davies said the reforms did not go far enough, insisting that many of the Galvin report’s recommendations had yet to be adopted.

“If five steps are needed, the parliament always seems to take only two,” he said.

“We are now better than the Italian system but a long way short of the standards of the House of Commons.”

A spokesman for the European parliament said: “The Galvin report is a study of potential weaknesses in the system of parliamentary assistance allowances. It has had important consequences. The result has been a complete overhaul of this system to enter into force after the June elections.”

Monday, 23 February 2009

I wish to highlight some statements I made on my website ericedmond.com when I stood last summer for election onto the SW MEP list:

Give all my salary to UKIP – some £40k pa

Yes I know MEPs get paid gross more than that but that is roughly what I would receive net. NB I know of no EU rule that stops an MEP giving his own money to whom he wishes.

I will always put my country’s interests before party interests.

All my actions, statements and articles have been governed by this over-riding principle. Unlike most candidates for political office I will do what I say. I am often asked by honest decent UKIP members who they should vote for. I always reply look at what candidates have done not what they say they will do and especially look at what percentage of their income they give to our cause and how much they take out.

I don’t want a country for self-important greedy political careerists.

UKIP members can judge for themselves who these careerists are and make their decisions accordingly.

I have never been in any other political party.

Those who seek to smear me and besmirch my reputation should note this. It is true and I will vigorously defend my reputation at all costs against those who seek to destroy it. A party that encourages half truths and anonymous lies that seek to destroy a members good name forfeits its claim to loyalty from its members.

I was elected on these commitments by the SW members. I attended all four hustings where the voting members were able to question me on what I stood for.

Readers of this blog will be aware that Mr Challice has been suffering from a rather embarrassing underpants ‘problem’ ever since he received a tongue lashing from Nigel Farage after failing to keep an eye on Roger Knapman and Piers Merchant.

I regret to say that despite receiving special treatment Mr Challice’s ‘problem’ has got worse. In fact it has now become so bad that Nigel Farage has placed an exclusion zone around Mr Challice and has warned all UKIPPERS to wear gas masks if they decide to visit UKIP HQ.

Nigel - ever the opportunist - has also decided to market an exclusive range of UKIP underwear in order to cash in on the current media interest surrounding Mr Challice’s ‘problem’. You can now purchase an exact replica of David’s pants ( here modeled by Paul Nuttall and Douglas Denny) for the princely sum of £9.99. All proceeds will - of course - go straight into Nigel’s wallet.

Sunday, 22 February 2009

Mr Harry Aldridge - another Farage sycophant- recently made the following announcement on the British Democracy Forum:

“Just seen incoming links to my blog from this thread, and thought i'd answer. I know nothing of this meeting if it indeed happened, and it was certainly not the doing of the A&SD committee. For avoidance of doubt Martin Haslam is no longer our PPC and we are seeking new applications. (ant takers?)”.

End of quote. The comments was posted on 16-02-2009 at 10:37 AM

I can now confirm that this statement came as quite a surprise to Martin Haslam who was under the impression that he was still a UKIP PPC.

Would Mr Aldridge care to explain when it was decided to remove Mr Haslam as a UKIP PPC?

Who made the decision?

What reasons were given for this decision?

Was an EGM called?

Why wasn’t Mr Haslam given the opportunity to defend himself?

Why didn’t anyone bother to tell Mr Haslam that he had been de-selected?

Do you think it is acceptable to de-select a candidate behind the candidates back?

Don’t you think that you should have had the decency to inform Mr Haslam of this decision BEFORE announcing it the world?

Please note that UKIP lost 7000 members in just 12 months! Please also note that at the time of the June 2004 Euro elections membership stood at almost 30,000. In five years membership has dropped by 50%.

3. The turn out was 41%. In 2008 the turn out was also 41%. It has already been noted on the British Democracy Forum that this is ‘statistically odd’.

As membership is down and moral is low I find this figure very, very suspect.

4. In 2007 George Curtis ( pictured above) only received 289 votes. In 2009 he received 2935 votes!

Mr Curtis is loathed by many Eastern Region members because of his involvement in the corrupt MEP selection process. You will recall that he interviewed ALL the MEP Eastern Region candidates. He has been accused of incompetence, bias, dishonesty and corruption. He has also been accused of sending a threatening letter to John West, a UKIP activist and branch chairman. He fully supported Andrew Smith's attempt to force all Eastern Region Committee members to sign a 'gagging agreement'. Both Curtis and Smith did this in order to deny ordinary members the right to know what is being done in their name. He lied about Robin Page, John West and Christopher Hudson in a report to the NEC. When Robin Page phoned him about these lies Curtis swore at him and slammed down the phone. It should also not be forgotten that the chairman of 20 Eastern Region constituencies said that they had no confidence in the man or his committee. Indeed, they signed a declaration to that affect.

There have been requests for Mr Curtis to be suspended as a member of UKIP. Peter Cole, a UKIP branch chairman, has asked for Curtis to be brought before a disciplinary committee for misconduct. Predictably Paul Nuttall has ignored these requests.

As Chairman of the Eastern Region Committee George Curtis has achieved NOTHING of note over the last few years. Under his 'inspired' leadership UKIP’s Eastern Region votes are down and membership has fallen by an average of 17 a month. Several branches are on the point of folding and it is fully expected that UKIP will lose at least one MEP in June 2009.

Do you really think that such a man would suddenly generate such a massive increase in support? He never did before!

Beyond the Eastern Region this bumbling fool is almost unknown. However, I have no doubt that Farage will claim that members across the country voted for Curtis in order to explain the mysterious increase in support!

5. Uncounted NEC votes were left unattended overnight. What steps were taken to prevent tampering?

Thursday, 19 February 2009

You will recall that ex-UKIP member and long time activist Gary Cartwright was apparently amused to learn, in a bar in Brussels, that he has been officially identified as "Junius". His ex-colleagues have been instructed not to have any contact with him.

This probably came as no surprise to him, as it is not the first time he has taken the blame when things go wrong in the Fuhrer bunker.

Some time ago he was blamed by Farage and David Lott (pictured above) for leaking details of Annabelle Fuller's sacking to Greg Lance-Watkins. He did a bit of investigating and learnt that GLW and another discussed this matter before he even knew of Fuller's departure. In fact, at that time only two people apart from Fuller knew anything at all about this - Farage and Lott themselves!

He was then sacked for supposedly selling the Sunday Times a story concerning the employment of Farage's son. He apparently has an affidavit from the Times clearing his name, but Farage never gave him any chance to defend himself, and to this day has not had the courage to look him in the eye. Having secured the dismissal, Farage then ran around telling everybody that he had evidence that it was actually Roger Knapman who had passed the story to the press.

Other dismissals quickly followed, and a police investigation into the hacking into of two staff members computers is still open.

Cartwright was also one of two people accused by UKIP's answer to Forrest Gump, Ralph Atkinson, of shopping Gawain Towler to the News of the World.

Wednesday, 18 February 2009

Bob Feal-Martinez is STILL claiming that I am about to be caught by Farage’s mighty storm troopers. As Bob has been threatening this for several months many people are starting to get rather bored. SponPlague - a British Democracy Forum regular - echoed the feelings of many when he said “Yes, but you've been predicting their unmasking for months Bob, which stretches the term "soon" to breaking point”.

On the British Democracy Forum ’Junius Blog’ thread Bob has said “As for junius their identities are known”.

Please do tell us Bob! I am sure that we would all love to know who I am supposed to be!

I was also highly amused to see Nigel Farage smugly telling his sycophants in Brussels that Gary Cartwright is Junius.

All UKIPPERS have now been warned NOT to talk to Mr Cartwright on pain of death! Sorry Gary, I had no intention of wrecking your social life!

Oh Nigel! What a fool you are! If you had an ounce of grey matter beneath those rapidly greying hairs you would have guessed my identity long ago! Remember that conversation in your favourite Brussels bar ? Still not warm? Incidentally what were you doing with a soon-to-be Libertas candidate in Brussels yesterday morning? You seemed very cosy together! Don’t tell me you are STILL after that £6 million? Or are you planning to jump ship?

At 10.00 AM Mr and Mrs West attended Ipswich County Court. They were there to request the return of their £250 MEP deposits. I understand that District Judge Patrick Bazley White has advised Mr & Mrs West to seek further legal advice as the matter could not be dealt with in a Small Claims Court.

It was interesting to see Mark ‘The Very Common Man’ Croucher quickly publishing various accusations against Mr West on his blog . These allegations were also repeated on the British Democracy Forum. Mr Croucher claimed that the judge had accused Mr West of being petty, vindictive and misguided.

Presumably he got these comments from Peter Reeve and Jonathan 'Nice but Dim' Arnott who were there on behalf of UKIP. It will be interesting to see if the Judge’s report contains these comments. If it does not I would suggest that Mr Arnott and Mr Reeve have some explaining to do. I have no doubt that Mr West's version is true as both Reeve and Arnott are well known Farage sycophants and liars.

Please also note that Mr Reeve was reported to the Police for assaulting Mr West at a UKIP meeting.

I see that Mr West contacted the Democracy Forum and made a complaint against Croucher . He said that “ This is a complete fabrication and has no basis in fact. The Judge did not describe me as vindictive, petty or misguided. Nor did he say that it was an abuse of the small claims process. In fact I was advised to seek further legal advice as the matter was beyond the remit of the Small Claims Court".

The thread was removed much to the annoyance of Farage and Croucher. In desperation Croucher repeated the accusations on another thread. That also got snipped.

I now understand that Mr West is to seek a judicial review against UKIP.

I have no doubt Nigel Farage and his hired hacks will continue to attack Mr West in the hope that he will give up. You can expect to see more smears on Croucher’s blog and the Forum in the near future.

I would urge Mr West to continue his battle against UKIP corruption. I can assure him that Farage is extremely worried about this threatened legal action. Just keep up the pressure and Farage will crack! Justice will prevail!

Tuesday, 17 February 2009

On 16th February I asked Bob Feal-Martinez to give me an assurance that he would not continue to post certain allegations against Paul Wesson and Greg Lance-Watkins.

I regret to say that he has failed to give me any such assurance. Because of this I have decided to ban him from posting comments on this blog. The ban started on 16th February and will last for 30 days.

Paul Nuttall - UKIP’s second-rate Mussolini and wannabe leader - was recently sent to New Scotland Yard. He was there at the behest of Farage to make a complaint against Roger Knapman, Piers Merchant, Del Young, Dr Edmond, Dr Abbott, Bruce Lawson, Martin Haslam, Tim Congdon and Sir Richard Body for misuse of Party data.

You will recall that Mr Knapman and his colleagues had sent a letter to many UKIP members. In this letter they urged members to vote no to Farage’s proposed constitutional changes.

Paul Nuttall claims that UKIP’s membership database was used by the signatories without the knowledge or permission of the leadership. He has demanded that the Police investigate the matter.

Nuttall asked to speak to New Scotland Yard’s Political Division. He was quite taken aback when he was told that it did not exist. Nuttall’s complaint was ultimately passed to a Police Constable in Newton Abbott who is now looking into the matter.

Nuttall has also made a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office.

The hypocrisy of UKIP’s leadership is mind blowing! They cared little about protecting data when John West’s video was put on You Tube. They cared even less when both Robin Page and John West requested material under section 7 of the Data Protection Act. You will recall that the NEC refused their request and now face possible legal action over this.

Is there anyone out there who still thinks that UKIP is worth a single vote while Farage and Nuttall remain as leader and chairman?

It was pointed out in a letter signed by Piers Merchant and Roger Knapman that the meeting was unlawful as the committee members had not been given the designated 21 days notice. As you can imagine Farage became extremely agitated after seeing this letter!

The purpose of the meeting was to de-select Dr Edmond as an MEP candidate. However, this could not be done as the meeting had not been properly constituted.

Farage was then forced to admit that the NEC had already decided to remove Dr Edmond from the MEP list. The committee was less than impressed with this revelation and pointed out to a now agitated Farage that any decision to remove Dr Edmond should have been left to them as they represented the people who had originally selected him.

Farage then accused Dr Edmond of disrupting several NEC meetings. He also claimed that he had been removed from the NEC for reporting UKIP to the Electoral Commission.

Farage was lying.

As a member of UKIP’s NEC Dr Edmond had been jointly and severally liable for UKIP’s debts. He had simply written to the Commission AFTER his removal from the NEC informing them that he was no longer liable for any future debts.

I should add that Dr Edmond had also written to Dr Whittaker requesting details of all financial transactions made during his time on the NEC. Dr Whittaker ignored his request.

It was decided to remove Dr Edmond from the Committee. They also confirmed his removal from the MEP list. He has also been banned from holding ANY office within UKIP.

Dr Edmond is set to be thrown out of UKIP when the proposed constitutional changes are approved.

Please remember that ALL decisions made at this meeting were unlawful because it was not properly constituted. I would urge all South West members to refuse to accept the decision of this ‘committee’. They should also demand the immediate reinstatement of Dr Edmond as both an MEP candidate and a committee member.

Saturday, 14 February 2009

On this blog you have accused Paul Wesson - a British Democracy Forum moderator - of contemplating murder. You have also accused Greg Lance-Watkins of racism and anti-Semitism. You went on to claim that he had been actively involved in the persecution of black South Africans.

You have failed to substantiate these allegations. If you continue to make these allegations you will be banned from posting on this blog for one month.

Nigel Farage has so far declined to comment on the Government’s decision to deny Dutch MP Geert Wilders the right to enter Britain.

He had been invited by Lord Pearson to show his controversial 17-minute film Fitna, which criticises the Koran as a "fascist book", in the House of Lords.

Despite claiming to believe in freedom of speech Farage is too gutless to back Lord Pearson. I can confirm that Lord Pearson is less than impressed with Nigel’s lack of support.

Thanks Nigel! Not only have you single-handedly alienated countless members but now your cowardly attitude could lose us what little support we have in the House of Lords.

However, I must say I can’t understand why Lord Pearson is so surprised at Nigel’s failure to support him over this issue. He should know by now that Nigel has no loyalty or principles. He would sell his own grandmother if he thought it would help him get back on the EU Gravy Train. His only interest is self-advancement. Appeasing radical Muslims is far more important to Nigel than defending freedom of speech.

Friday, 13 February 2009

Steve Harris - a Farage sycophant - has been trying to persuade members to sign a letter of complaint against Martin Haslam. He hopes to use this complaint as an excuse to get Martin suspended as a party member. Ultimately he hopes to get him thrown out of UKIP.

I am pleased to say that Mr Harris has so far failed to get support for this particular Farage instigated witch-hunt. Several members have already refused to sign his letter of complaint.

His ‘complaint’ concerns a dinner organised by UKIP’s Arundel and South Downs Branch. The dinner took place on 15th January. Martin Haslam was a guest. Nick Griffin was also there. Mr Haslam was unaware that Mr Griffin would be there.

The despicable witch-hunt clearly illustrates just how low Farage’s sycophants will stoop in order to attack an honest man.

Martin Haslam is a man of integrity. He has donated thousands of pounds to UKIP and even helped pay Marta Andreasen’s wages. I have yet to meet anyone - apart from the Farage cabal - who has a nasty word to say about him.

Farage repaid Martin’s patriotism by getting a pro-EU/anti-UKIP newspaper to phone Martin and question him about UKIP’s MEPs.

Farage did this after Martin had asked him some VERY awkward questions about UKIP’s finances.

At Martin’s last NEC meeting in November Farage proudly announced that he had approached The Independent in order to test Martin’s loyalty. He had failed his ‘test’ and was therefore not worthy to remain on the NEC. He was then thrown off.

February’s NEC meeting should have been held at the beginning of the month. Nuttall cancelled it after claiming that not enough NEC members could make it. The bad weather was also used as an excuse.

In fact it was cancelled because Farage was convinced that the organisers of UK Renewal were going to launch a new party. He wanted to hold the NEC meeting after the Swindon conference in order to discuss the best way to deal with this new breakaway party. As you now know the expected launch never happened. So much for Nigel’s intelligence network!

The meeting is to be held in Nigel’s lovely new campaign HQ in London. The gathering is set to last for just two and a half hours. Topics to be discussed include the postponement of John West’s kangaroo court, the constitutional changes, the Knapman letter and the Ugley meeting.

John West’s expulsion was postponed after he sent the NEC a letter threatening to report Jeffrey Titford and Michael Zuckerman to the authorities for witness intimidation. As you can imagine this caused a few problems!

Paul Nuttall ( pictured here with Nigel and a friend) has been faced with several calls to suspend Farage sycophants Peter Reeve and George Curtis. These complaints concern allegations of gross misconduct. Naturally, he does not have ANY intention of suspending them. His current tactic is to play for time until the constitutional changes go through. Once that happens the complainants can be thrown out of the party.

I don’t expect David Challice’s worsening underpants ‘problem’ to be raised.